Will China Supply Arms to Russia in Ukraine War during 2023?
Dec 31
68%
chance
Sort by:
AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnbought Ṁ100 of YES

For those interested, here is one of the customs documents the politico article is based on:

https://importgenius.s3.amazonaws.com/Body+Armor+Data.pdf

Note that the last shipment was 12/31/22 (!!!) and that this is part of a dataset that has not yet been made more broadly available by Import Genius, leading me to believe that their datasets are in arrears and that it will be highly likely for January imports to turn up once they have 2023 data in hand.


Go buy that YES!

footgun avatar
footgun

@AlQuinn Are these body armours? Do you have a similar dataset for lethal arms? Like rifle or bullets. I am curious to see when those stopped.

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnis predicting YES at 66%

@footgun Yes, that was body armor. Here are the hunting rifles:

https://importgenius.s3.amazonaws.com/Tecnom.pdf

May & June. The China North data line is missing the country of origin...oops, hope they didn't get fined for that.

Don't know about the "drone parts" though.

Would the body armor not qualify as "arms" for the purposes of this question?

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnis predicting YES at 66%

@footgun oh, and July. Those first two lines say Country of Origin = RU but Origin Country is CN. Then for another line, they don't use the ISO code "CN" for china but instead spell it out: КИТАЙ. Whoever does their paperwork should be fired.

footgun avatar
footgun

@AlQuinn I was thinking lethal arms particularly, as in the link in the description you could see that the “red line” of concern is lethal arms.

Philosophically I agree that body armour can probably help keep the aggression going as well as rifles. But weapons that kill and harm will be a different optics and consequences. Hence it also means that China is willing to accept them and commit to another level.

footgun avatar
footgun

@AlQuinn

I think this discussion also shows the difficulty of writing good forecast question:

  • To attract trader and attention, it helps that the question is brief, general and quickly written after key event

  • To avoid ambiguity, it helps that the question is specific, detailed, and avoid edge case

For example, this question could well be split into several, each regarding tank/missile/gun, but then each will have much less liquidity and hence less accurate and meaningful. A general question is a better schelling point.

I don’t have a silver bullet for this. Hence I think it is important to keep the discussion civic and generally focus on truth-finding rather than word-playing.

SemioticRivalry avatar
Semiotic Rivalrysold Ṁ82 of NO

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/16/chinese-rifles-body-armor-russia-ukraine-00087398

Chinese companies, including one connected to the government in Beijing, have sent Russian entities 1,000 assault rifles and other equipment that could be used for military purposes, including drone parts and body armor, according to trade and customs data obtained by POLITICO.


RobertCousineau avatar
Robert Cousineausold Ṁ57 of NO

@SemioticRivalry that sure looks like supplying arms to me. @footgun.

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnsold Ṁ28 of NO

@RobertCousineau Not necessarily "supplying arms to Russia in Ukraine". But I was always leery of this market because of the vague resolution criteria, so closing out for now with a nice profit (**self-satisfied Al Quinn noises**)

xyz avatar
Yoavbought Ṁ100 of YES

@AlQuinn It's "supplying arms to Russia in Ukraine War"

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnbought Ṁ30 of NO

@xyz I just want to make sure everyone is done panic-selling NO and buying YES to point out that, regardless of whether or not any arms shipments from China qualify due to (you could argue) the fungible nature of weaponry, this article points to shipments occurring June-December of 2022; however the resolution of this question specifically requires such shipments during 2023. It could be the customs data series was through only 2022 and we have no information yet on 2023 activity, or it could be that such activity was stopped last year.

Anyway, getting my beak wet again on this at this more attractive price!

RobertCousineau avatar
Robert Cousineaubought Ṁ40 of NO

@AlQuinn very fair point. I've gone ahead and re-purchased some shares.

SemioticRivalry avatar
Semiotic Rivalrysold Ṁ91 of YES

@AlQuinn I find it extremely difficult to believe that this didn't continue into 2023 with even a single chinese firm, but unclear resolution criteria is unclear.

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnis predicting NO at 60%

@SemioticRivalry Exactly my thoughts. If one bullet to anywhere in Russia is YES, then my reentry was stupid. If clear evidence of a pattern of deadly weapons from China flowing into the Ukraine theater is YES, then I'm happy with holding some NO. I did well during the Oscars so I'm fine with losing 30M on this.

footgun avatar
footgun

@AlQuinn

Folks, good discussion. Few points from me:

  • I will not resolve this market suddenly either way and I intend to have a one-week grace period for us to discuss. So feel free provide argument and counter argument.

  • The supplement of concern has to happened during 2023. It can be before market creation (e.g. Jan 2023). This will make the question a better reference point in case we need to reask next year.

  • As for whether the weapons end up in the Ukraine theatre, I think it is not relevant. If China supplies arms to Russia, but it was instead used to quell unrest, it is still a “yes”. Russia is a war economy now.

  • If the war ended, and after that point China supplies arm, then this question should be “No”

I am open to change my mind regarding the above so feel free to discuss.

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinn

@footgun Thanks for clarification. Sounds like a rather stringent interpretation compared to what I expected, so I'm back out! I would be surprised if one errant shipment didn't get to Russia one way or another, versus a pattern of purposeful wartime collusion.

AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnis predicting NO at 41%

US working on a joint plan with the G7 to sanction China if they do this.

footgun avatar
footgun
footgun avatar
footgun
AlQuinn avatar
Al Quinnis predicting NO at 77%

So what are people thinking will be the US (and European) response if this happens? China is good at pursuing dumb foreign policy, but this going YES would be retarded even by their standards. This doesn't seem like the sort of drama China needs right now, and I don't see why they would risk so much for a few tens or hundreds of millions in revenue.

Alternatively, are people thinking it's possible this resolves technically as YES without the arms in question being of actual significance in Ukraine?

SemioticRivalry avatar
Semiotic Rivalryis predicting NO at 72%

@AlQuinn

“For us, it would be a red line in our relationship. He told me they’re not going to do it, that they do not plan to do it. But we remain vigilant,” Borrell said.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3210885/red-line-europe-warns-china-not-send-weapons-russia


Probably not wise for China to become an enemy of 30% of their total trade balance and 85% of their total trade surplus in order to appease 3% of their trade.

SemioticRivalry avatar
Semiotic Rivalrybought Ṁ22 of NO

Do civilian drones which can then be militarized count?

footgun avatar
footgun

@SemioticRivalry No. Unless evidences show that lethal drones were purchased directly.

NathanpmYoung avatar
Nathan Young

Was coming here to create this market. You love to see it.